6 ms·

My tin-hat alter ego says the three letter agencies are creating these companies for the sole purpose of then purchasing the data and skirting the law. But that

My tin-hat alter ego says the three letter agencies are creating these companies for the sole purpose of then purchasing the data and skirting the law. But that guy is crazy. ha ha.

brightlancer 3y ago
Why would the three letter agencies need to do that? There's plenty of money to be made by private businesses doing it with fewer risks of violating the law. And the TLAs aren't interested in selling this info to state and local agencies, while that's probably the bigger dollar for private businesses.
- colechristensen 3y ago
  Because sometimes there are laws that prevent governments from doing things which don't prevent them from buying the results.
  - johnea 3y ago
    In the US it's illegal for anyone to do it. This is just as clear a violation of the 4th amendment as the multi-billion dollar goggle empire. But nobody really cares about that do they? Laws are routinely enforced or ignored based on which option allows the largest profits for incumbents.
    - jonathankoren 3y ago
      The 4th amendment only applies to the government, and has only ever applied to actual tangible property. This is being in public where there is no expectation of privacy.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        This. The Bill of Rights doesn't protect us here. We need plain old lawmaking.
      - singleshot_ 3y ago
        The fourth amendment, of course, also applies to private actors when they become essentially agents of the state, by taking in a role traditionally within the purview of the state, so long as the state knows of the activity, more or less. If you would like a more accurate definition, you can search for “state actor doctrine” and you will find some cases about railroads drug testing employees and parcel carriers searching packages for contraband.
        pc86 3y ago
        None of which applies to a company that sells this data to anyone who wants to pay for it.
        HenryBemis 3y ago
        A phrase that I learned to use recently is: "In the private sector everything is allowed, except those that are explicitly prohibited. In the public sector everything is prohibited, except those that are explicitly allowed." This is why in the EU (which is not a perfect society, but 'good enough'/'better than others' we got GDPR and EUDPR which cannot and should not be ignored. If you allow the public sector to go rogue, then freedoms and right will be corroded and eventually taken away 'for our sake'.
      - singleshot_ 3y ago
        Wait, what? The fourth amendment only applies to tangible property? Unless I am missing something really obvious, this is deeply mistaken. I would be very interested, for example, on your take on Carpenter v. US.
      - petsfed 3y ago
        Eh, the case law here is less clear, principally because automated surveillance at this scale has never been possible before. But its also unclear because this is a tricky zone for the (mentioned elsewhere) "State Actor Doctrine". Since there are legitimate, non-government uses of e.g. license plate tracking, that means the product and service is not, obviously, a state actor. So should the 14th amendment cover it? My gut feeling is "yes", but case law doesn't (yet) reflect that. Did the founding fathers anticipate a situation where everyone, everywhere, in public, was being surveilled, ceaselessly, in a fashion that allowed automated tools to pick out individuals, but at basically zero cost? "No reasonable expectation of privacy" presupposes that the potential invaders of said privacy are actual living human beings, who have to be paid for their time, and thus have to sleep, eat, excrete, blink, etc. They cannot be on the job 100% of the time without incurring considerable cost. Previously, perfectly tailing someone 100% of the time was reserved for the most valuable of targets. Now it can be affordably used on somebody with overdue parking tickets. Or whomever the summer intern at one of these shops decides is cute and has an easy-to-remember license plate.
      - SoftTalker 3y ago
        Well the 4th amendment does not mention a limitation to the government. It says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" it says nothing about limitation to government actors. It does go on to talk about Warrants which are government instruments, and I agree that taking pictures of licence plates on public roads would not be a violation anyway. But you can't argue that because I'm a private person, or that because TransUnion is not the government, that it's legal for us to go searching through peoples houses or papers or effects.
        bee_rider 3y ago
        The constitution covers government behavior. There are lots of other laws you’d have to worry about if you were trying to investigate somebody. Trespassing/breaking and entering for example.
    - Spooky23 3y ago
      Nope. I built one of these things years ago to control a parking gate. We did a lot of legal review due to customer concerns. There’s nothing illegal unless you facilitate certain behaviors that vary by jurisdiction. The police have huge networks. Almost all speed and red light cameras record 7-30 days of continuous video. Typically those installations cover most entry and exit points of a city. The DEA operates interstate surveillance on drug corridors. There are LPR hits and driver/passenger pictures from Maine to Miami, for example. All legal because driving is a privilege, and you don’t have a right to privacy in public.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > All legal because driving is a privilege, and you don’t have a right to privacy in public. "Driving is a privilege" is a slogan created by authoritarians. The word "driving" doesn't appear in the constitution one way or the other. Travel is a right.
        olsonjeffery 3y ago
        US Constitution worship on HN has to be, for me, one of the great disappointments for a community that regards its intelligence so highly. The constitution is a piece of paper; it’s not internally consistent and not even rational.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        It is, however, federal law, and consequently the first place you start to see if something is a right under the US legal system.
        yieldcrv 3y ago
        Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege You’re free to walk
        landemva 3y ago
        > Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege True. The license to do so is a voluntary contract with State which persons may or may not sign. Alternatively, avoid "motor vehicle", and don't use words they regulate such as "operator". Anyone in USA is free to travel in a personal conveyance for non-commercial purposes while respecting property rights of others. > driving is a privilege Commercial licensure of that regulated activity using those words is a privilege.
- TechBro8615 3y ago
  It doesn't even need to be nefarious or direct. Companies founded by an "ex TLA employee" have increased credibility, and might even procure investment from openly CIA-affiliated venture capital firms like In-Q-Tel. And since the founder has a security clearance (they're "in the club"), the company will have no issues procuring government contracts. The revolving door works in both directions.
- quantified 3y ago
  TLAs aren't interested in making some money on the side?
  - pixl97 3y ago
    In general no, but the individuals that work for them like money and know what needs the TLA will pay for.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
  I know one prominent TLA (nominally banned from domestic surveillance) that had a contract with a data broker 25 years ago. Third party doctrine lets them ignore 4A protection.
jonathankoren 3y ago
They don't need to create the companies. They just buy from them. Anyway, license plate info isn't considered a search because it's in public, and the SCOTUS doesn't care about how scale makes what used to be tolerable, a very different beast. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/08/how-law-enforcement-around-country-buys-cell-phone-location-data-wholesale https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/08/how-law-enforcement-ar... https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/automatic-license-plate-readers-legal-status-and-policy-recommendations https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/auto...
- hermitdev 3y ago
  Some enterprising individual should purchase the data for the sole purpose of publishing activity of politicians, judges, and so on. I bet you the laws would change in a hurry.
  - shiftpgdn 3y ago
    Lots of jurisdictions already have carve outs where you can’t publish information (such as location data) for high level public officials.
    - gruez 3y ago
      Source? That sounds like it would run afoul of the 1st amendment. Most likely it's actually implemented as something vague like "intimating a public official", and prosecutors use the threat of a charge to bully people into stopping.
      - shiftpgdn 3y ago
        https://www.txcourts.gov/programs-services/court-security/court-security-resources/ https://www.txcourts.gov/programs-services/court-security/co...
        landemva 3y ago
didntknowya 3y ago
more likely they fund these companies through "research grants" then buy their services
twiddling 3y ago
Total Information Awareness
robbywashere_ 3y ago
It wouldn’t need to be a conspiracy. An employee of a three letter agency just gets “poached” by said company. Resigns from agency. Works for company, still keeps in contact with his friends at agency. Setting up those demos and meetings for their latest product are easy now.
throwaway-PII 3y ago
The guy who created TLO was a former cocaine smuggler. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_Asher https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_Asher
bob1029 3y ago
One of my managers at Samsung constantly brought up this theory that google was an extension of the CIA. Back in 2012 I thought he was nuts. Not so much anymore. Killed by google dot com is my #1 red flag...
afpx 3y ago
That’s not far from the truth. A lot of these companies are located in Northern Virginia, and the sales people are tied into the intelligence community.
thefurdrake 3y ago
What do you mean?! A three letter agency creating an entire company and product just for the sole purpose of collecting information on people? Preposterous! cough https://www.engadget.com/fbi-anom-phone-arcaneos-180523267.html?guccounter=1 https://www.engadget.com/fbi-anom-phone-arcaneos-180523267.h...

My tin-hat alter ego says the three letter agencies are creating these companies for the sole purpose of then purchasing the data and skirting the law. But that guy is crazy. ha ha.

brightlancer 3y ago

Why would the three letter agencies need to do that? There's plenty of money to be made by private businesses doing it with fewer risks of violating the law. And the TLAs aren't interested in selling this info to state and local agencies, while that's probably the bigger dollar for private businesses.

colechristensen 3y ago
Because sometimes there are laws that prevent governments from doing things which don't prevent them from buying the results.
- johnea 3y ago
  In the US it's illegal for anyone to do it. This is just as clear a violation of the 4th amendment as the multi-billion dollar goggle empire. But nobody really cares about that do they? Laws are routinely enforced or ignored based on which option allows the largest profits for incumbents.
  - jonathankoren 3y ago
    The 4th amendment only applies to the government, and has only ever applied to actual tangible property. This is being in public where there is no expectation of privacy.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      This. The Bill of Rights doesn't protect us here. We need plain old lawmaking.
    - singleshot_ 3y ago
      The fourth amendment, of course, also applies to private actors when they become essentially agents of the state, by taking in a role traditionally within the purview of the state, so long as the state knows of the activity, more or less. If you would like a more accurate definition, you can search for “state actor doctrine” and you will find some cases about railroads drug testing employees and parcel carriers searching packages for contraband.
      - pc86 3y ago
        None of which applies to a company that sells this data to anyone who wants to pay for it.
        HenryBemis 3y ago
        A phrase that I learned to use recently is: "In the private sector everything is allowed, except those that are explicitly prohibited. In the public sector everything is prohibited, except those that are explicitly allowed." This is why in the EU (which is not a perfect society, but 'good enough'/'better than others' we got GDPR and EUDPR which cannot and should not be ignored. If you allow the public sector to go rogue, then freedoms and right will be corroded and eventually taken away 'for our sake'.
    - singleshot_ 3y ago
      Wait, what? The fourth amendment only applies to tangible property? Unless I am missing something really obvious, this is deeply mistaken. I would be very interested, for example, on your take on Carpenter v. US.
    - petsfed 3y ago
      Eh, the case law here is less clear, principally because automated surveillance at this scale has never been possible before. But its also unclear because this is a tricky zone for the (mentioned elsewhere) "State Actor Doctrine". Since there are legitimate, non-government uses of e.g. license plate tracking, that means the product and service is not, obviously, a state actor. So should the 14th amendment cover it? My gut feeling is "yes", but case law doesn't (yet) reflect that. Did the founding fathers anticipate a situation where everyone, everywhere, in public, was being surveilled, ceaselessly, in a fashion that allowed automated tools to pick out individuals, but at basically zero cost? "No reasonable expectation of privacy" presupposes that the potential invaders of said privacy are actual living human beings, who have to be paid for their time, and thus have to sleep, eat, excrete, blink, etc. They cannot be on the job 100% of the time without incurring considerable cost. Previously, perfectly tailing someone 100% of the time was reserved for the most valuable of targets. Now it can be affordably used on somebody with overdue parking tickets. Or whomever the summer intern at one of these shops decides is cute and has an easy-to-remember license plate.
    - SoftTalker 3y ago
      Well the 4th amendment does not mention a limitation to the government. It says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" it says nothing about limitation to government actors. It does go on to talk about Warrants which are government instruments, and I agree that taking pictures of licence plates on public roads would not be a violation anyway. But you can't argue that because I'm a private person, or that because TransUnion is not the government, that it's legal for us to go searching through peoples houses or papers or effects.
      - bee_rider 3y ago
        The constitution covers government behavior. There are lots of other laws you’d have to worry about if you were trying to investigate somebody. Trespassing/breaking and entering for example.
  - Spooky23 3y ago
    Nope. I built one of these things years ago to control a parking gate. We did a lot of legal review due to customer concerns. There’s nothing illegal unless you facilitate certain behaviors that vary by jurisdiction. The police have huge networks. Almost all speed and red light cameras record 7-30 days of continuous video. Typically those installations cover most entry and exit points of a city. The DEA operates interstate surveillance on drug corridors. There are LPR hits and driver/passenger pictures from Maine to Miami, for example. All legal because driving is a privilege, and you don’t have a right to privacy in public.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > All legal because driving is a privilege, and you don’t have a right to privacy in public. "Driving is a privilege" is a slogan created by authoritarians. The word "driving" doesn't appear in the constitution one way or the other. Travel is a right.
      - olsonjeffery 3y ago
        US Constitution worship on HN has to be, for me, one of the great disappointments for a community that regards its intelligence so highly. The constitution is a piece of paper; it’s not internally consistent and not even rational.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        It is, however, federal law, and consequently the first place you start to see if something is a right under the US legal system.
      - yieldcrv 3y ago
        Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege You’re free to walk
        landemva 3y ago
        > Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege True. The license to do so is a voluntary contract with State which persons may or may not sign. Alternatively, avoid "motor vehicle", and don't use words they regulate such as "operator". Anyone in USA is free to travel in a personal conveyance for non-commercial purposes while respecting property rights of others. > driving is a privilege Commercial licensure of that regulated activity using those words is a privilege.
TechBro8615 3y ago
It doesn't even need to be nefarious or direct. Companies founded by an "ex TLA employee" have increased credibility, and might even procure investment from openly CIA-affiliated venture capital firms like In-Q-Tel. And since the founder has a security clearance (they're "in the club"), the company will have no issues procuring government contracts. The revolving door works in both directions.
quantified 3y ago
TLAs aren't interested in making some money on the side?
- pixl97 3y ago
  In general no, but the individuals that work for them like money and know what needs the TLA will pay for.
kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
I know one prominent TLA (nominally banned from domestic surveillance) that had a contract with a data broker 25 years ago. Third party doctrine lets them ignore 4A protection.

jonathankoren 3y ago

They don't need to create the companies. They just buy from them. Anyway, license plate info isn't considered a search because it's in public, and the SCOTUS doesn't care about how scale makes what used to be tolerable, a very different beast. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/08/how-law-enforcement-around-country-buys-cell-phone-location-data-wholesale https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/08/how-law-enforcement-ar... https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/automatic-license-plate-readers-legal-status-and-policy-recommendations https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/auto...

hermitdev 3y ago
Some enterprising individual should purchase the data for the sole purpose of publishing activity of politicians, judges, and so on. I bet you the laws would change in a hurry.
- shiftpgdn 3y ago
  Lots of jurisdictions already have carve outs where you can’t publish information (such as location data) for high level public officials.
  - gruez 3y ago
    Source? That sounds like it would run afoul of the 1st amendment. Most likely it's actually implemented as something vague like "intimating a public official", and prosecutors use the threat of a charge to bully people into stopping.
    - shiftpgdn 3y ago
      https://www.txcourts.gov/programs-services/court-security/court-security-resources/ https://www.txcourts.gov/programs-services/court-security/co...
      - landemva 3y ago

didntknowya 3y ago

more likely they fund these companies through "research grants" then buy their services

twiddling 3y ago

Total Information Awareness

robbywashere_ 3y ago

It wouldn’t need to be a conspiracy. An employee of a three letter agency just gets “poached” by said company. Resigns from agency. Works for company, still keeps in contact with his friends at agency. Setting up those demos and meetings for their latest product are easy now.

throwaway-PII 3y ago

The guy who created TLO was a former cocaine smuggler. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_Asher https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_Asher

bob1029 3y ago

One of my managers at Samsung constantly brought up this theory that google was an extension of the CIA. Back in 2012 I thought he was nuts. Not so much anymore. Killed by google dot com is my #1 red flag...

afpx 3y ago

That’s not far from the truth. A lot of these companies are located in Northern Virginia, and the sales people are tied into the intelligence community.

thefurdrake 3y ago

What do you mean?! A three letter agency creating an entire company and product just for the sole purpose of collecting information on people? Preposterous! cough https://www.engadget.com/fbi-anom-phone-arcaneos-180523267.html?guccounter=1 https://www.engadget.com/fbi-anom-phone-arcaneos-180523267.h...